The Father Of (Partial Preterism) A Catholic Jesuit "Luis De Alcasar" (1554-1613)

jgr said:

What "blatant lie" is that?

In the enduring words of our favorite Bunny, Bugs, it is to laugh.

I've had fun. I'm sorry that you haven't.

Our readers can decide.

Click to expand...

After further research, I find a need to retract my charge of an "outright lie" on the part of jgr. For I find that some copies of 1 John omitted the Greek word "o," (the word "the" in English) from the text of 1 John 2:18.

Biblewriter said:

Afterfurther research, I find a need to retract my charge of an "outright lie on the part of jgr. For I find that some copies of 1 John omitted the Greek word "o," (the word "the" in English) from the text of 1 John 2:18.

Click to expand...

If you'd simply followed the Greek interlinear link I had provided, you would have seen that immediately.

I can't explain why that source has no "o" but yours does. Would you know?

Thanks for the retraction.

jgr said:

If you'd simply followed the Greek interlinear link I had provided, you would have seen that immediately.

I can't explain why that source has no "o" but yours does. Would you know?

Thanks for the retraction.

Click to expand...

I quoted from the received text, which is the one I personally consider more reliable. For some strange reason the "textural editors" consider the Alexandrian text more reliable, even though it is found in only roughly one out of every 20 ancient manuscripts. This seems to stem largely from giving undue credence to the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, because they are thought to be so much older than any other Greek manuscripts. But I cann this attributed credence "undue" because even the textural editors themselves admit that both of these manuscripts show distinct evidence of "tampering." By that, they mean that they contain internal evidence of he scribes willfully and intentionally inscribing words that are different from the words in the source text they were using.

I have personally examined this evidence only in the case of the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark. And the evidence in this case is obvious and overwhelming. In the Sinaiticus, the sheet on which this passage fell is in a different handwriting that the surrounding material, And the lettering is enlarged to hide the fact that this section was removed. And in the Vaticanus, the scribe omitted this section, but left a large blank spot, clearly showing that he was aware that something was left out.

I am personally unable to comprehend the rationale of giving any credence whatsoever to a textural variant anywhere in a document, after once concluding that THAT document contained EVEN ONE variant that was intentionally made, as opposed to a merely accidental scribal error.

Biblewriter said:

I quoted from the received text, which is the one I personally consider more reliable. For some strange reason the "textural editors" consider the Alexandrian text more reliable, even though it is found in only roughly one out of every 20 ancient manuscripts. This seems to stem largely from giving undue credence to the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, because they are thought to be so much older than any other Greek manuscripts. But I cann this attributed credence "undue" because even the textural editors themselves admit that both of these manuscripts show distinct evidence of "tampering." By that, they mean that they contain internal evidence of he scribes willfully and intentionally inscribing words that are different from the words in the source text they were using.

I have personally examined this evidence only in the case of the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark. And the evidence in this case is obvious and overwhelming. In the Sinaiticus, the sheet on which this passage fell is in a different handwriting that the surrounding material, And the lettering is enlarged to hide the fact that this section was removed. And in the Vaticanus, the scribe omitted this section, but left a large blank spot, clearly showing that he was aware that something was left out.

Click to expand...

1 John 2:18 in the well-regarded NASB version does not show a "the", thus whatever Greek manuscript they use must not have an "o".

jgr said:

On this its 500th anniversary, give thanks for that.

Click to expand...

Give thanks????

For shredding the Body of Christ into thousands of pieces???

For bring in confusion as to what truth is regarding Christ???

For establishing mountains of heterodox and outright heretical teachings???

For sowing confusion in the minds of pagans as to what the truth is???

For establishing a murderous regime in England that killed thousands just for the crime of being Catholic???

For possibly being the source of leading thousands and thousands to be out of fellowship with Christ???

For establishing religions which do not represent heaven on earth and are symbolically devoid of meaning????

Thanks????

No thanks.

Light of the East said:

Give thanks????

For shredding the Body of Christ into thousands of pieces???

For bring in confusion as to what truth is regarding Christ???

For establishing mountains of heterodox and outright heretical teachings???

For sowing confusion in the minds of pagans as to what the truth is???

For establishing a murderous regime in England that killed thousands just for the crime of being Catholic???

For possibly being the source of leading thousands and thousands to be out of fellowship with Christ???

For establishing religions which do not represent heaven on earth and are symbolically devoid of meaning????

Thanks????

No thanks.

Click to expand...

Pope Francis at the ecumenical prayer service in Sweden, October 31, 2016:

"We too must look with love and honesty at our past, recognizing error and seeking forgiveness, for God alone is our judge."

He apparently does not share your sentiments.

jgr said:

Pope Francis at the ecumenical prayer service in Sweden, October 31, 2016:

"We too must look with love and honesty at our past, recognizing error and seeking forgiveness, for God alone is our judge."

He apparently does not share your sentiments.

Click to expand...

Nice dodge to what I posted. The fact is that for the Western Church, the Reformation has been an utter disaster, according to what I posted. You can't even tell me what the truth is about the Bible in a forum like this because if you post one opinion on one doctrine, you will get 100 different and conflicting answers.

Light of the East said:

Nice dodge to what I posted. The fact is that for the Western Church, the Reformation has been an utter disaster, according to what I posted. You can't even tell me what the truth is about the Bible in a forum like this because if you post one opinion on one doctrine, you will get 100 different and conflicting answers.

Click to expand...

Of course it was a disaster for an institution which exerted absolute spiritual control for over 1000 years to lose that control.

Those who were emancipated knew and know otherwise.

For those such as yourself who apparently abhor spiritual freedom and diversity in Christ, feel free to remain where you are.

Most Christians welcome the opportunity to express varying viewpoints as preferable to being burned at the stake.

jgr said:

Of course it was a disaster for an institution which exerted absolute spiritual control for over 1000 years to lose that control.

Those who were emancipated knew and know otherwise.

For those such as yourself who apparently abhor spiritual freedom and diversity in Christ, feel free to remain where you are.

Most Christians welcome the opportunity to express varying viewpoints as preferable to being burned at the stake.

Click to expand...

You miss the point. Is adherence to truth the same as "absolute spiritual control" in a dictatorial sense? Can you show me where our Lord said that we were free to come up with just any doctrine we wish to believe in, such as the dozens of conflicting doctrines in Protestantism? Where does Christ or St. Paul or the Early Fathers allow for "diversity" when it comes to doctrinal matters? Protestantism has denied the things that were taught in the very first centuries of the Church, things that were taught by the Apostles themselves. You cannot think for one second that is a good thing.

Now as for the Roman Church itself, I would be a fool to deny that they had become deeply corrupt (Tetzel and his "indulgences" for instance) and were screwing the poor right into the ground with that false doctrine and the way they painted lurid pictures of throwing coins into a bowl to release their relatives from "Purgatory."

But destroying the unity of a congregation is not the way to deal with corruption. That's like cutting your head off because you have a headache.

Light of the East said:

You miss the point. Is adherence to truth the same as "absolute spiritual control" in a dictatorial sense? Can you show me where our Lord said that we were free to come up with just any doctrine we wish to believe in, such as the dozens of conflicting doctrines in Protestantism? Where does Christ or St. Paul or the Early Fathers allow for "diversity" when it comes to doctrinal matters? Protestantism has denied the things that were taught in the very first centuries of the Church, things that were taught by the Apostles themselves. You cannot think for one second that is a good thing.

Now as for the Roman Church itself, I would be a fool to deny that they had become deeply corrupt (Tetzel and his "indulgences" for instance) and were screwing the poor right into the ground with that false doctrine and the way they painted lurid pictures of throwing coins into a bowl to release their relatives from "Purgatory."

But destroying the unity of a congregation is not the way to deal with corruption. That's like cutting your head off because you have a headache.

Click to expand...

I miss no point. The refusal of the historic Roman Catholic church to recognize and address its descent into apostasy, and to reform itself from within; necessitated the birth of a movement which would accomplish the necessary Reformation from without. The spiritual success of that movement is evidence of its divine ordination and empowerment, and the spiritual freedoms and liberties which we enjoy today are directly attributable to that success, and to the faith and sacrifice of those who led and supported, frequently to the death.

You speak of doctrinal conflict and disunity. To which doctrines are you referring? There are foundational essential doctrines to which every individual naming the name of Christ must subscribe. There is interdenominational unity on these. On the remainder, there is freedom for the expression of diverse viewpoints. This stimulates thought and dialogue. If you view such freedom of expression as threatening, and prefer your doctrine hierarchically imposed, then you obviously need to remain where and as you are.

That said, there is much which I applaud and with which I concur in Catholicism. The understanding of the Kingdom of God and Heaven as spiritual realities is unassailably scriptural. The recognition of prophecies which have been historically fulfilled is likewise. The identification of the Church as the Israel of God and His sole and exclusive New Covenant chosen people is likewise. The recognition of the New Covenant as a Divine Will and Testament which completely transcends the old is likewise. The Millennium as Christ's reign within the hearts of His people is likewise.

I've said at various times on this forum that it is time for another Reformation, this time within evangelical Protestantism, to purge the impurities which dispensationalism has introduced, and to return the true Church to the historic and prophetic faith of the fathers. In the early days before apostasy began to take hold, some of those fathers are identified with Catholicism, and I am more than willing to identify with them and their contributions to the Church of God.

I miss no point. The refusal of the historic Roman Catholic church to recognize and address its descent into apostasy, and to reform itself from within; necessitated the birth of a movement which would accomplish the necessary Reformation from without.

This is something I have been struggling with for the last 3 or so years since I really got into the history of the Roman Catholic Church as opposed to the Catholic (or universal) faith which precedes the schism of 1054 AD. Jesus said that you judge a tree by its fruit, and the fruit of the Roman tree has been pretty rotten in the last 1000 years, both doctrinally as well as morally.

The spiritual success of that movement is evidence of its divine ordination and empowerment, and the spiritual freedoms and liberties which we enjoy today are directly attributable to that success, and to the faith and sacrifice of those who led and supported, frequently to the death.

I do not see the Protestant movement as having either divine ordination or empowerment. Your fruit is no better than that of Rome. All I have to do is think of the actions of most of Protestantism in Europe. With the exception of the Anabaptists, who were principled pacifists, murdering people just for being Catholic has nothing to do with being either ordained or empowered. That is the work of the devil, whom Jesus said was a murderer and liar from the beginning. Protestantism followed its father.

You speak of doctrinal conflict and disunity. To which doctrines are you referring?

Good grief! Come on, man! You guys can't even agree on baptism! There must be two dozen different teachings on baptism. Fundamentalists condemn going to movies and drinking alcohol as sending you straight to hell while Presbyterians enjoy both. You deny the Sacraments which were a part of the Christian faith from the very beginning.

There are foundational essential doctrines to which every individual naming the name of Christ must subscribe. There is interdenominational unity on these.

Baloney, sir!!! Large slice of baloney!! You apparently haven't been around forums very long, have you? You haven't watched two different Christians from the same idea (i.e. Baptist) condemn each other to hell over some arcane piece of theological understanding.

The only "foundational essential doctrine" which it finally boils down to is "Do you believe in Jesus" or "Have you accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior" and even then, that is sometimes not enough to escape condemnation.

On the remainder, there is freedom for the expression of diverse viewpoints.

Show me where Jesus taught you could have different "viewpoints" of the truth?" 2+2 doesn't equal 4 in one place, 6 over there, 7 here, and 10 there. Truth is truth, regardless of your viewpoints. The fact that the Roman Church was doctrinally a putrid, stinking corpse in the Middle Ages does not change the base truth of the Christian faith which Protestantism denies to the teeth - that of sacramental theology and the part that the Sacraments play in our salvation and our entering into the New Covenant.

This stimulates thought and dialogue.

No, it creates utter chaos and confusion. I blame Rome for this. The Eastern churches never suffered from a Reformation because they never deformed the original message.

If you view such freedom of expression as threatening, and prefer your doctrine hierarchically imposed, then you obviously need to remain where and as you are.

This statement shows that you do not understand how a covenant works nor the covenant kingdom. The Scriptures teach that the Church is the "pillar and ground of truth" and not your "thought and dialogue." Also, think about this - you actually believe in what has been "hierarchically imposed." The Church "imposed" the truths of the faith on the world when it defined the Trinity at the Council of Nicea and rejected the heresy of Arias. It "imposed" the various definitions of the nature of Christ in the subsequent councils. But Mormons and JW's reject these definitions. How are you, in your rejection, any different than they are?

That said, there is much which I applaud and with which I concur in Catholicism.

I applaud the Catholic faith also - just not the Roman version. Perhaps you are aware that the Orthodox Church calls itself "the catholic Church" of Orthodoxy. That is the "catholicism" which I applaud. OTOH - I am really beginning to seriously question whether or not the Roman Rite lost its bloomin' mind after the schism of 1054AD. It is after that schism that you see teachings and doctrines enter that have no relationship to what the Early Fathers taught, and you especially begin to see the Roman Rite turn murderous towards those outside its kingdom - beginning with the Sack of Constantinople.

The understanding of the Kingdom of God and Heaven as spiritual realities is unassailably scriptural. The recognition of prophecies which have been historically fulfilled is likewise. The identification of the Church as the Israel of God and His sole and exclusive New Covenant chosen people is likewise. The recognition of the New Covenant as a Divine Will and Testament which completely transcends the old is likewise. The Millennium as Christ's reign within the hearts of His people is likewise.

I've said at various times on this forum that it is time for another Reformation, this time within evangelical Protestantism, to purge the impurities which dispensationalism has introduced, and to return the true Church to the historic and prophetic faith of the fathers.

In the early days before apostasy began to take hold, some of those fathers are identified with Catholicism, and I am more than willing to identify with them and their contributions to the Church of God.

You don't need to do this. Come over to the "Ancient Faith" forum room. Orthodoxy has not left the faith of the Early Fathers, and while not pure, has certainly not indulged itself in the kind of theological, moral, and doctrinal rottenness of the Roman Church. This is why so many Evangelicals, such as Hank Hanedegraff and thousands of others have "gone East" rather than continuing with the Western errors of Rome.

And yes, I am looking forward to the day I can convert to Orthodoxy. There are reasons that I am where I am right now, and they are from the Lord for reasons that I don't fully understand right now.

Truth7t7 said:

Truth7t7: The False Teaching Of (Partial Preterism) From The Roman Catholic Jesuit Priest (Luis De Alcazar 1554-1613) During The Counter Reformation.

Click to expand...

Truth7t7 said:

Roman Catholic Jesuit Priest, Luis De Alcazar, "A Corrupt Tree"!

Matthew 7:18KJV
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Matthew 12:33KJV
Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Wikipedia: Luis del Alcázar (Ludovicus ab Alcasar, Louis of Alcazar) (1554–1613) was a Spanish Jesuit theologian.

He is known for his Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi (1614) published after his death, putting forward what would later be called a preterist view of Biblical prophecy, in commentary on the Book of Revelation; his work is regarded as the first major application of the method of interpretation of prophecy by reading in terms of the author's contemporary concerns.[5] His view was that everything in the Apocalypse, apart from the three final chapters, refers to events that already have come to pass.
Wikipedia: Preterism

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that interprets some (partial preterism) or all (full preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened. This school of thought interprets the Book of Daniel as referring to events that happened in the 2nd century BC, while seeing the prophecies of Revelation as events that happened in the first century AD. Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which Webster's 1913 dictionary lists as a prefix denoting that something is "past" or "beyond". Adherents of preterism are commonly known as preterists. Preterism teaches that either all (full preterism) or a majority (partial preterism) of the Olivet discourse had come to pass by AD 70.

Historically, preterists and non-preterists have generally agreed that the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar (1554–1613) wrote the first systematic preterist exposition of prophecy - Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi (published in 1614)—during the Counter-Reformation.

Moses Stuart noted that Alcasar's preterist interpretation was of considerable benefit to the Roman Catholic Church during its arguments with Protestants,[3] and preterism has been described in modern eschatological commentary as a Catholic defense against the Protestant Historicist view which identified the Roman Catholic Church as a persecuting apostasy.

Jesus Christ Is The Lord!

Truth7t7

Click to expand...

Just because it woz a Jesuit and a Catholic, duzant mean that it is wrong - too much protestant prejudice for me. I think that the Catholic theories on eschatology and so forth are usually correct.
Years ago, I had no idea that it was a consensus of opinion, that the book of Daniel was written in the main in 169-4 BC, as a response to the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV - it all works out, even the 10 horns and the little horn works out according to history and what actually happened - Antiochus is the little horn of Daniel.
The book of Daniel duzant predict the Romans - it is all about the Greeks. In my view, cynically written after the facts of history - which the writers knew well, and yet write obscurely as if it were prophetic - just write plainly; if it is Antiochus IV write that, and not the 'king of the North' - give it a rest already.

Hiscosmicgoldfish3 said:

Just because it woz a Jesuit and a Catholic, duzant mean that it is wrong - too much protestant prejudice for me. I think that the Catholic theories on eschatology and so forth are usually correct.
Years ago, I had no idea that it was a consensus of opinion, that the book of Daniel was written in the main in 169-4 BC, as a response to the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV - it all works out, even the 10 horns and the little horn works out according to history and what actually happened - Antiochus is the little horn of Daniel.
The book of Daniel duzant predict the Romans - it is all about the Greeks. In my view, cynically written after the facts of history - which the writers knew well, and yet write obscurely as if it were prophetic - just write plainly; if it is Antiochus IV write that, and not the 'king of the North' - give it a rest already.

Click to expand...

Based in the writings of Josephus, Daniel predicted the events of 167BC over 400 years before they happened.

BABerean2 said:

Based in the writings of Josephus, Daniel predicted the events of 167BC over 400 years before they happened.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't put much faith in Josephus, he wozunt a Christian, and was opposed to Christianity. Some of it might be earlier, but most was written during the Maccabean era, in my opinion.

Hiscosmicgoldfish3 said:

I wouldn't put much faith in Josephus, he wozunt a Christian, and was opposed to Christianity. Some of it might be earlier, but most was written during the Maccabean era, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Do you deny that Daniel was taken into captivity in Babylon, during the time of Jeremiah?

.

BABerean2 said:

Do you deny that Daniel was taken into captivity in Babylon, during the time of Jeremiah?

.

Click to expand...

I don't want to comment on that, as it might be against forum rules.

Hiscosmicgoldfish3 said:

I don't want to comment on that, as it might be against forum rules.

Click to expand...

How do you decide which parts of the Bible are true and which are not?

.

BABerean2 said:

How do you decide which parts of the Bible are true and which are not?

.

Click to expand...

I think that it was harder for the Protestants than for Catholics. During the reformation, the thinking arose, that if we can't trust the Catholic church, then we will have to trust the bible only, so solo scriptura developed quickly.
That is why you will find that the Catholic interpretation, in the main, says that Daniel was written in 169-4 BC and is about Antiochus IV. Then you look at secular works and they say the same thing. If you then look at the Protestant belief - it is not so.
I prefer to learn for myself, and so read widely, from secular writers to see what they think. I don't want to be cowed by Protestant fundamentalism.
The information is absorbed, so now when I read Daniel again, I think - 'this is about Antiochus IV, and is not about a future antichrist'.
But it is a hard one to solve, as Jesus was trying to clarify the Law, and made it even stricter in some cases -
I think that it is a case of being guided by the Holy Spirit, combined with learning with an open mind.
Solo scriptura didn't seem to ground the Protestant church in the truth, as they latched onto Copernicus like it was going out of fashion. They dumped Genesis 1 and accepted heliocentricm. Then Darwin came along and they went with Darwin in the main, and only objected to Darwinism as it was so contrary to the bible -
I go back to the bible and Genesis 1 and consider it to be the truth. Then people will come along and say that I cannot hold my opinions that I have, and yet they are all in the main heliocentrists and scoff at people like me, so who is the orthodox one?
I can understand the thinking of the reformation - they had to guard against heresy.

Hiscosmicgoldfish3 said:

I think that it was harder for the Protestants than for Catholics. During the reformation, the thinking arose, that if we can't trust the Catholic church, then we will have to trust the bible only, so solo scriptura developed quickly.
That is why you will find that the Catholic interpretation, in the main, says that Daniel was written in 169-4 BC and is about Antiochus IV. Then you look at secular works and they say the same thing. If you then look at the Protestant belief - it is not so.
I prefer to learn for myself, and so read widely, from secular writers to see what they think. I don't want to be cowed by Protestant fundamentalism.
The information is absorbed, so now when I read Daniel again, I think - 'this is about Antiochus IV, and is not about a future antichrist'.
But it is a hard one to solve, as Jesus was trying to clarify the Law, and made it even stricter in some cases -
I think that it is a case of being guided by the Holy Spirit, combined with learning with an open mind.
Solo scriptura didn't seem to ground the Protestant church in the truth, as they latched onto Copernicus like it was going out of fashion. They dumped Genesis 1 and accepted heliocentricm. Then Darwin came along and they went with Darwin in the main, and only objected to Darwinism as it was so contrary to the bible -
I go back to the bible and Genesis 1 and consider it to be the truth. Then people will come along and say that I cannot hold my opinions that I have, and yet they are all in the main heliocentrists and scoff at people like me, so who is the orthodox one?
I can understand the thinking of the reformation - they had to guard against heresy.

Click to expand...

The timeline is found below.

The question is, are you willing to accept it as the truth?


Dan 9:1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;
Dan 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.
Dan 9:3 And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes:

.

BABerean2 said:

How do you decide which parts of the Bible are true and which are not?

.

Click to expand...

How do you decide which is true or not?